Accessibility Guidelines Working Group -- 04 Feb 2020

<Jennie> Scribe: Jennie

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

Alastair: Can anyone scribe during the 2nd half of today's meeting?

WCAG 2.2 FPWD CFC

Alastair: notification: Call for Consensus for publishing draft of 2.2 as a working draft.
... we are taking an additive approach, so it has only 1 SC.
... Focus Visible Enhanced.
... Accessible Authentication is coming.
... So are we happy to publish the current working draft? You received an email.

<alastairc> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/

Alastair: Does anyone have any questions?

<Brooks> a+

Brooks: I know there was a request to have the Accessible Authentication pass through the security task force of the W3C - how has that gone?

Alastair: meaning going back through the survey route?

Brooks: Yes

Alastair: It has it's scope defined, it is pretty much there. I was hoping it could go straight to CFC

Brooks: OK. Thank you.

Silver naming

Alastair: Silver naming - we are separating this out at the beginning.
... There have been a few discussions about this in various groups. We will not please everyone.
...Options: Web Accessibility Guidelines, Digital Accessibility Guidelines/Standard, and other options.
... We did have a charter objections from W3 members about a wider scope.
... We also people who want a wider scope.
... Others want something that results in WCAG acronym, others that want to avoid it.
... Of all groups, the wanting to avoid the WCAG acronym was the smallest/least bothered group.

Alastair: We have 3 options that have made it through.
... I will give a general intro

JF: maybe we can paste the names in?

<alastairc> W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG with a silent 3)

<alastairc> Web Community Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)

<alastairc> Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)

Alastair: the second one uses a different word, the third one maintains the acronym
... Michael - please respond to James
... I was leaning towards #3 - aligning the scope, rather than a particular technology(ies)

Judy: Are you saying the W3C aligns to the originization?

Yes, please clarify

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about number

Judy: OK, thank you

JF: If we are going to stick with an acronym of WCAG, we already have a WCAG 1 and 2 - will this be 3?

<jon_avila> Seems like the same people that object to beyond web might object to the word "web" not be included.

Alastair: I assume yes, in a backwards incompatible fashion too

JF: I think socializing this will be important if we stick with the WCAG
... it is more than WCAG

Alastair: Agreed

<Wilco> +1 to WCAG 3

<kirkwood> +1 to WCAG 3

<laura> +1 to WCAG 3

<JustineP> +1 to WCAG 3

Leonie: I think this idea came from me, and the reason I suggested it is because I hope it is a good compromise between those that want a bigger and a lesser expanse.
... Calling it W3C it calls out that it is from the W3C and states it follows those technologies.

<AWK> +AWK

<JF> +1 to Leonie

Leonie: I do think as much as I would like to see these expanded, W3C is about consensus.
... Those with concerns have reasonable concerns.
... This constrains it in a reasonable way.

Judy: Ditto

James: I am here now

Alastair: We have had a few positive comments in favour of the version of the name that incorporates the name W3C
... maintaining the WCAG acronym but calling it 3
... I have not heard anyone objecting to that, or wanting other names
... We did also discuss having digital accessibility guidelines might raise some objections

David M: We are suggesting we are prefacing it with W3C?

<jcraig> +1 to WCAG 3 "W3C Accessibility Guidelines"

Alastair: Yes

David M: I see

<alastairc> Proposal: W3C Accessibility Guidelines version, WCAG 3.0

scribe: It is not Web Content, it is W3C...

Alastair: yes

David M: OK, I'm ok with that.

<Zakim> jcraig, you wanted to say, apologies for the tardiness, but can we hold the name discussion until I get the telecom issue resolved? I'm not in the call yet. Hopefully soon

Alastair: James - are you on cue?

James: I was just trying to delay the discussion until I got on. I agree with the discussion.

Brooks: I like the community - speaks to the direction of the Silver work.
... Digital content user experience. One of my original concerns was that it limited the focus to the particular content.
... I like the web community accessibility guidelines - it reflects what it takes to make it accessible, in collaboration.
... But, the 1st example gets rid of the content word so there isn't as much focus on that.

<kirkwood> +1 to community per Brooks

<Glenda> +1 to WCAG 3 “W3C Accessibility Guidelines”

Brooks: I wanted to mention why at 1st glance I preferred community.
... What you suggested is not something I can't live with

Alastair: It didn't quite have the same meaning for me - community sounded like people getting together to "make things up"
... without the ecosystem you had read into it.

<AWK> +1 to "W3C Accessibility Guidelines" and WCAG 3.0

Alastair: I'm seeing lots of +1s

<laura> +1 to "W3C Accessibility Guidelines" and WCAG 3.0

Alastair: as long as people are happy to live with the W3C one, it seems to be the direction at the moment.

David M: The nested acronym

scribe: WCAG references the W3C, and this is the World Wide Web Consortium

Judy: Reactions from random collections of people: the web community accessibility guidelines I had the best reactions to
... the comment that kept sticking: it was unclear how authoritative that was
... With WCAG 2 there has been worldwide visibility
... we did not want to lose that.
... The W3C accessibility guidelines: some reactions were some confusion on how we get that acronym
... but there doesn't seem to be confusion around the scope of the work since it maps to the W3C
... the authoritativeness builds.
... The more I have looked at this, the more the W3C Accessibility Guidelines seems to stick fairly well.

<tink> +1 to the concern that "community" lacks apparent authority.

<janina> Suggest it raises interesting opportunities for a clever logo design

JF: Putting my branding hat on, we have spent 2 decades branding WCAG as "the thing"
... if you stopped random people, they may not know the answer, but what is it? Everyone knows.

<janina> +1 to JF

JF: As we transfer to the new framework, I'm less concerned about how we got to the acronym.

John K: Needing to operationalize the WCAG standards across a large agency, I could see what landed and what didn't

scribe: This was people in charge of 100s of websites.
... They would know what WCAG was, but they wouldn't know what W3C was
... WCAG has landed in their minds. It would be detrimental to take this away unless we had a strong marketing plan to do this
... We have gotten the language forward of WCAG 1st
... Needs to be well thought through

<Caryn> +1 to community

Alastair: You are happy to keep the acronym, less concerned what is in it?

John K: I think what is in it is important too, but not sure how much it will be seen

Alastair: OK
... I am concerned about time.
... Anyone who could not live with the current proposal.

<david-macdonald> +1

Alastair: WCAG 3?

<Zakim> jcraig, you wanted to address Judy's comments about authoritativeness, WCAG could be /explained/ shortly as "WWWeb Consortium Accessibility Guidelines" with retains the

<kirkwood> +1 to WCAG 3

James: I think the authoritativeness is retained. 1 way to explain: Web Consortium Accessibility Guidelines.

<JF> +1 to James

<david-macdonald> +1

<Lauriat> +1 to James

James: Retains the authoritativeness, and increases understandability

Alastair: OK

<kirkwood> +1 to James

<tink> +1 to James' narrative for explaining how the acronym would fit.

Judy: That might be interesting for other reasons we had not thought of.
... Occasionally there are proposals to shorten the name of the W3C

<mbgower> WCAG 3 +1 (we can always have create explanations for what it means)

<kirkwood> +1 to Web Consortium Accessibility Guidelines

Judy: Some of the name had to be rejected based on what would happen with the acronym
... I think that James' idea is interesting.

James: Web Consortium Accessibility Guidelines is just a way to explain it, not a name suggestion

JF: understood. I like the direction this is headed in.

<kirkwood> agreed

JF: For the majority of people out there, they will call it WCAG 3, but the rest won't matter to them

Alastair: I am not seeing any objections

W3C Accessibility Guidelines

Alastair: Any objections?

<Detlev> Sorry, was caught up in a meeting

RESOLUTION: Accepting New Name for Silver

Judy: My understanding is that there will be further feedback on the name.

Alastair: Yes - this is a working group meeting resolution only

WCAG 2.2 Custom interactions: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Custom_interactions/

Alastair: that is a good next step.

WCAG 2.2 Findable help: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/findable-help/

Silver naming

Silver FPWD survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/Silver-ED-21-01-2020/results

Alastair: We had the survey, which is our 1st opportunity as a group to go through the Silver draft as it stands.
... people were able to comment
... Looking at the results there are quite a few people that have been through
... Jeanne - should we go through the top 1st?

Jeanne: Thank you everyone for your comments
... We just starting working through the comments in the Silver call before this.
... We are setting up a new branch in Github
... so you won't be confused.
... Sorry about the 404 error for the visual contrast example.
... This is now fixed.
... The major thing we wanted to communicate: we were asking you to look at the structure, but we were putting a lot of content in
... There were questions about what we wanted.
... We appreciate the need for more clarity. We made notes this morning for how we will do this.
... The context is that do you understand the content, not do you agree with the content.
... The content is to illustrate the structure.
... We have not done the deep dive around the details.

Alastair: OK
... I did try to say when my feedback was editorial, vs more substantial.
... It is a big survey.
... A few people have put in big, general comments.
... Wilco said "around indicating which parts are normative...is there a plan for that?"
... is that something being considered or still up in the air?

Jeanne: There are parts of it. The details are still up in the air.
... The intention: the guidelines themselves would be normative.
... what is in the methods/explanation would be informative.
... We are working with a designer right now, and this won't be ready for the 1st public working draft, to make the styling be more clear.

Alastair: I guess it will take some getting used to - for example the clear language guideline
... (reads from the draft) - it is not testable on its face, which people are used to
... in terms of a W3C specification, I'm not sure that will work.

Jeanne: I think we need to find that out, that's a new one to me. I will look into that.
... The issue of whether or not we have to have testable SC, even if we don't call them that, I looked into that in the past.

<david-macdonald> WCAG 1.0 has guidelines and techniques. https://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/

Jeanne: These are guidelines, not interoperable specifications.

<JF> QW+

Michael C: I'm not sure about that. We have to go through and test the guidelines.

scribe: We will do it with non-normative content, which is what we did with WCAG 2 as well

Alastair: Regardless of that, there still needs to be a very clear route to what it would you would use to test.

JF: This doesn't concern me - these are guidelines, not interoperable specifications.
... The initiatives from EO (?)
... Will we have testable requirements in the testable, measurable, repeatable?

Jeanne: It is certainly our intention.
... But putting it in normative, it is our thought that it doesn't have to be in the normative section.
... And the WCAG tests themselves aren't in normative, they are in informative.

<jon_avila> The current SC are normative and testable statements

JF: The current SC are normative, the current framework we have techniques.
... The ATC task force has tests that are not normative, but they have normative requirements.
... There needs to be normativeness - normative to a certain level.

Alastair: I am wondering if this is intended to be solved with a future view of the guidelines.
... Something mentioned is that there will be different views.
... If you have the HTML platform view, that view could include links through to each method required to meet the guideline. Is that correct Jeanne?

Jeanne: Yes

Alastair: Then it is worth saying that somewhere at the top.

<CharlesHall_> i think the general intent could be described as transference. the parts that is testable, measurable and repeatable are the methods.

Alastair: We had a second questions which said "how do you know which parts to test?"

Janina: We have had discussions, but these are good points

JF: From a structural perspective we need to know what is normative.

Janina: I said that on this morning's call too

David M: In WCAG 1.0 there were guidelines, no SC, just techniques. They were all normative.

scribe: in 2.0 we knew it would take a long time so we created the normative SC to get the ideas, without mentioning technologies to help with shelf life.
... It may give us normative techniques or methods, because we are updating every 18 months
... The tests, techniques, technologies we had tried to pull out, we may be able to collapse that back in.

Alastair: Leonie?

Leonie: I tend to go the other way. I would be concerned if we put testable criteria into normative language. I think it would undo what was done in 2.0

<jon_avila> We currently have testable statements in normative in WCAG 2.x

Leonie: As soon as you put them in normative language it sets up techniques, which makes emerging technologies really difficult.

Alastair: OK
... I am trying to scan through for a different topic.
... Does anyone have broad comments on the conformance model?

JF: I have many, many comments

Alastair: Is it ready for a wide review for 1st public working draft?

JF: I have not finished responding to the survey yet.
... My overarching concern right now (without responding to content) is how will we score any of this?
... I have raised this multiple times.
... The architecture of what we are being presented doesn't address scoring.
... When I dove into examples I looked at headings.
... In my response, when we look at headings on a web page, depending on the user group you speak to, there are impacts.
... Speaking to daily screen reader users, their presence is important. And, the hierarchy can be broken in older pages.
... The people with cognitive disabilities: getting the hierarchy wrong can have a much greater impact.
... In ARIA we have role=heading...when we test against heading, getting the hierarchy wrong is more impactful for people with cognitive disabilities
... When we test and score, how do I get to a number? What criteria will we use when evaluating headings?
... Are we looking at a passage of text? A page?
... How do I score this? These are the types of architectural issues
... The ability to understand the measurement

<janina> Response to JF: Problem is mashups. Can we get browsers to fix skipped levels on a mashup?

JF: The bit I am adding to the page is only one section...or measuring at the page or site level?
... I have tried to surface this comment before.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to answer JF

Jeanne: John has raised a number of issues.
...Scoring: the point is by whatever the org/owner has determined that it is
... it could be a website, application, mobile app
... because we are trying to expand beyond just traditional HTML, we didn't want to say - we couldn't say it was by page anymore
... There is a section on scope which talks about the organization as a neutral term to include business, goverment, NGOs, etc.
... or web product creators. Web applications, augmented reality, all the different ways we have new web technologies expanding.
... That was tricky. The way we want to do this: a point per whatever the organization determines it is.
... It probably isn't a point, unless they do it perfectly, it is probably a percentage of a point.
... We want to get away from the all or nothing
... We want to give people a representation of where they are in terms of how they did when trying to meet the guidelines.

JF: Actually, no, this raises more questions
... We will leave it up to the organizations to self-report/self-measure.
... Content authors: websites using a content management system
... the person authoring is only authoring part of the page.
... They may think "I've got it right" but if the rest of the template has issues
... the author who posted it did everything right, they think they should get the full point because they feel they did everything right.
... for most organizations they don't want to grasp it at the nuclear level.
... When I worked at the university, we had multiple schools under the banner.
... The scale problem here is one of the issues.

Jeanne: I believe we did
... Organizations claim some type of conformance, and they say how much they are conforming for
... What we were trying to do was formalize what people tend to do already today - they test whatever part of a project they are working on
... or, they test everything
... I don't think in this area we are doing anything different than we are doing today, except moving from a small number of pages to meet the needs of the broader field of the web
... than we had 12 years ago.

Alastair: OK
... (not as Chair): 1 of the things I was trying to work out is if I had a webpage and was trying to go through the point system
... and work out visual contrast, how would I score that, and how would I put that into a score where 2 guidelines together...
... and I could work out how that system was going to work out
... for both large and small sites.
... It is hard to tell at the moment.
... Going from the points explanation in the document, to the other parts, e.g. the testing under visual contrast
... I'm not sure looking at how you score that - at the page level, the site level...hard to work the sampling/scoring into a larger score
... That is obviously a difficult problem, and it is like there is too much content at the moment for what it needs to do.
... How to explain that? How to provide the walk through: given these 2 guidelines and this sample, how do you get to a score?

Jeanne: let me see if I understand, as we are struggling with how to explain it.
... What would help you is if we had a sample website, where we could say "here is how you would score visual contrast, clear language, section headings, alt text"...this is how I would score it?

Alastair: Yes
... It talks through a percentage, but I was not sure how to get the scoring from the methods
... It is the structure plus content aspects.
... Maybe it is more time needed?
... The more time I spend in it, the more questions I had.

<jon_avila> my phone wont' unmute

<alastairc> jona: Questions related to automatics/passes being taken into account. Difficult to determine what is passes and what isn't. E.g. form fields, it depends on the unit.

<alastairc> ... goes back to John's comments, but also the in-applicability. If I don't have flashing content shouldn't I pass?

<alastairc> ... more details to figure out.

<alastairc> scribe: jon_avila

Jeanne: Need to find get to those finer points

DavidM: At end of day say we have 25 guidelines or more or less -- so scoring would be on 25 point if I understand correctly. There will be categories assigned to disabilities. Is that correct?

Jeanne: wanted to have a minimum in each category and you would accomulate.
... Functional needs based on EN 301 549 functional needs plus modification

DavidM: Inside of each guideline you have a score from 0 to 100 and would apply to unit of measurement? Is that right?

Jeanne: Each guideline is worth 1 - you would achieve a percentage - a range between there.

DavidM: They way to 0 to .5 -- say I have a site of 100 pages - what would be an example of a .5 and .75 etc. Help me understand how to get there.

Jeanne: That one is not in the draft as we are still working on it. People can choose method that applies to their organization. We are drawing up rubric to evaluate headings.

<alastairc> David - https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/conformance-js-dec/guidelines/methods/Method-plain-language-principles.html

Jeanne: Different factors - is it in a logical order, etc. How you would score the factors overall would give you a percentage.

<alastairc> (That highlights the different approaches within the method)

Jeanne: Other things like alt - while it simple how many have images vs. have alt text. That could be done as percentage.

DavidM: sounds like we haven't determined how we can from 0 to 1 - but we have not determined that yet.

Jeanne: That's part of what we want to be working on together. As bring over existing content -- now that we have more flexibility in how we test and score it. We can all work together. What's the best way to score a particular guidelines.
... There will be different ways to score different guidelines.

DavidM: Will that be in the test section.

Jeanne: Yes

Alastair: Dropped a link in to scoring.

Aalastair: Not clear if you use a professional editor and fix recommendations -- what score does that give you?

Jeanne: Just talking about that in the Clear Language group - if you used a professional editor and you followed those changes you would get 100% and you followed the style guide for your organization. If you follow what your organization says you would get 100%.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about requirements that span multiple user-groups

Alastair: When you have different options we need to know how to score.

JF: My question is all guidelines are created equal. Today we have a language of doc must be declared. We also have multiple requires audio description. Producing AD is significantly harder. Do they both get same score?
... How do we know the professional editor is correct and how do we know the style guide address the needs of clear language. How do we address this in regulatory language. It's like comparing Pepsi vs. Coke. How would this look in a VPAT environment.

Jeanne: That's correct. We have worked on a number of different ways to change scoring of guidelines that would be fair to all disabilities. Let's just say declare them all equal. Found some good research from NIST that talked about how to normalize the various guidelines to make it more fair.
... That way one disability does not have a advantage over others.

JF: Right now we have a Level A and Level AA requirement for audio description. Does an organization get a point for transcript and another for audio description?

Alastair: Once we figure out scoring of guidelines then we can find if things need balancing out. Am not too worried about that now.

Detlev: To point of guidelines being created equal. Effort and impact on users is important. How many functional user needs are affected. For example, focus order is important for several user needs. Not easy to weigh them in any way.
... The point I wanted to make with images - you just go through them and aggrigate. The big issues is that many things in testing that some are highly critical and some are nearly unimportant. Without alt text you could be lost -- with others the alt text is less important. Difficult to reflect on normative level.

<david-macdonald2> http://mandate376.standards.eu/standard/functional-statements

Quality of alt text is issue too.

Jeanne: Agree and part of what we are working on for alternative text.

Wilco: 2 point. It strikes me that so much has not been discussed -- right before we working on first public working draft -- makes me really wonder if we are ready and if we need to do a review first.

Alastair: Has been discussed in Silver task force. That is question for today should it be published as a first working draft. We should be cognizant of it generating more questions or concern.

wilco: dropping accessibility support is really concerning

+1 to Wilco. Dropping accessibility support is very concerning.

Wilco: Can we get a new approach to conformance. Sees to be very little concrete in this document. Mostly a list of things we would like to see -- but nothing concrete there.

Alastair: In terms of things like dropping accessibility support - might be a few things like that - have been discussed and we need to surface those discussions. Can people reviewing this understand the scoring system.

Leonie: Regarding are all guidelines equal -- starting with 1 for each sounds like a good place to start. The lack of audio description may stop me while the lack of a lang attribute on an English page may not stop me.

<JF> I was attempting to compare apples to apples. Yes, larger orgs have more paperwork, but everyting is relative

<kirkwood> +1 to Leonie about the ‘easy’ aspect of things and scale.

Leonie: Can't assume adding an attribute is easier than other might not be accurate. Depending on type of CMS and contracts -- it's not necessarily that easy. Audio description can be created easily in some situation.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that you can combine a verification process with a development process to arrive at a score

<CharlesHall_> +1 to variability of effort

MIkeG: To respond to Leonie -- there will be scale -- audio description resolving on a giant website might be a whole website is going to be different than a page. We are not going to solve points and level in first public working draft. We have to start somehwere. this is a revamp of standard. wouldn't suprise me if we are going to have second draft - going to be a slog to get to release.

<CharlesHall_> resolving and remediating is only one aspect of the guidelines. they intend to inform how to create a thing in the first place.

MikeG: There are a number of ways scoring is achieved. Could be a combined way - systems in place as an organization - could get certain amount of points. You can get a score that can approximate. Not the Silver task force person for IBM -- but in my opinion we will have work to do and it doesn't have to be mint.

<janina> +1 to Mike

<JF> +1 to David - especially the "confidence" part

DavidM: I'd like to the points and levels with an example for the public working draft. The questions I had -- everyone needs to hear those answers. The world is watching and this is an important draft and setting the tone for the future. We want people to have confidence and that we are all on the same page.

<Wilco> +1

<JF> +1

DavidM: Would like to work longer with task force before it released. I know there is a disclaimer -- but people may not read that. I'd like to see more maturity before it comes out and getting those questions asked from stakeholder -- sufacing conformance, accessibliity support and going from beginning to end on one guideline would give people confidence.

<CharlesHall_> apologies / regrets, I have to drop from call

<laura> +1 to David

Alastair: I'd agree with Mike that not all scoring will be there -- but the conformance scoring through at least one but ideally more than 1 as an example -- in an explainer -- I think would be very useful the wider review.
... Seems dangerous to put out if we internally are struggling to work it out. Some things like Accessiblity support need answers but don't need to be updated for first public working draft.
... Is it still useful for folks to fill in the survey?

Jeanne: Yes

Alastair: Please carry on -- the survey should be open until Thursday.

Jeanne: Thank you all for the comments and we will end up with a much better draft.

WCAG 2.2 Custom interactions: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Custom_interactions/

WCAG 2.2 Findable help: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/findable-help/

Alastair: Returning to WCAG 2.2. We have looked at Finding Help previously. Jennie are you able to Summarize?

<alastairc> Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fX4Iw169OGUny5RTd70S8qAneYy5e0hr7zupE21gPBM/edit

<alastairc> Comments: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/findable-help/results

Jennie: One of the major concerns was around number 4 in survey. Gone back with Steve and we draft text at top of Google doc with some options and an alternative version.

<alastairc> On every page that has blocks of content that are repeated on multiple web pages, and is actively supported, a mechanism is available that provides help in a different format than is already on the page.

Jennie: The alternative version tries to remove the techniques from the normative text.
... Originally when we started -- conversation around contextual help that is already on page -- such as a little "i" to get more informatino.
... That was not to be included in what this SC was about. The little "i" would still be able to present -- but that it would not satisfy this success criteria. The intent was to get human help when working through a process.
... Come to a place where something that is hidden or three pages down may not be findable by users with cognitive disabilities.

Alastair: In terms of the comments -- not sure which ones are recent or not.... Detlev - did you answer recently or a while ago?
... The questions we had last time were around different types of help. In terms of defining mechanism -- seems like almost anything would fit that SC.

Jennie: Our rationale for including what passed in the SC text -- but that fails. How can define a broad topic like help with specifying those mechanisms.
... Is it possible for certain success criteria to ask for an exemption from number 4?

Alastair: It's not an exemption so much -- that's not the biggest question -- it's more the case of something we can reasoable ask of every website. We can't target sizes or types of websites or website owners.
... For example, requiring everyone to have a person contact method is something that would need a wider review.
... Are the comments in there -- are those things you address as part of the updates?

Jennie: Yes, comment about modal dialog and static documents - which is why we adopted language of bypass block success criteria. the only way we ruled out modal dialog is that we could not find a way to keep it in but rule out static documents like PDF. That was a compromise. Not sure it's best answer.

DavidM: The section about repeatable content -- I actually really like that. We'd need to figure out what is supported such as is it updated frequently. Instead of saying frequently asked pages -- say linked to frequently asked questions.
... Like the idea of content repeated on multiple pages. Do we want that on small sites -- like my own site. About 15 public facing pages. What kind of help link would it be suggesting? How to use site?

Jennie: We were asked for example and multiple scenario of sites that did not want to offer intensive help. they could say that don't respond to individual request or say here is a manual. We chose to not add that specific detail at this time.

DavidM: If there is a phone number and email that would address the success criterion.

JF: This is really good Jennie - like where you are going. I note you say under test procedure. You may say the following may be present but don't satisfy. I don't see anywhere you indicate that the ability to find the help is programmatically identifiable. As long as it's programmatically findable whatever people are using people will being able to find it.
... For example, if the little i was indicated as related to help then all users could find the help.

Jennie: When the sub-committee reviewed programmatically determinable -- since it was text or link we assumed it was already covered. If you felt important to add we could add.
... The little i is often contextual text that people have already tried. Where do they go if they already tried that.

JF: don't think it would be harmful to add programmatically determinable here. Wouldn't it be really neat if we had an ARIA role for help as an example.

Alastair: Would this fall under 1.3.1 if that was available?

JF: Maybe. As we bring more requirements to the table -- they tend to be more granular now. 1.3.1 is very broad.
... If we had a way to programmatically determine what you need - a phone number of chat bot is secondary.

Alatair: Until we are sure of the attribute applied -- it's a bit tricky to proactively apply.

Alastair: Something to consider -- as gone through review and work from small team. Not hearing objections to criterion text. I prefer version where it is explictly written. I don't think alternative is a useful.
... We could define a chat bot and move that into a definition. Is anyone worried or concerned about actual requirement itself?

Wilco: wanted to bring up quick point that I put in survey - wondering about actively supported term which seems a little odd. What it seems to create a webpage can be non-conformant today and conformant tomorrow based on whether something decides to support a page.

Alastair: apologies for missing your comments. If it's not actively supported is anyone going to worry about it? If there is no one actively supporting a website -- then people won't be testing or doing anything with it. Good point from regulatory point.

Jennie: Got some feedback - need for users to know if a site is actively supported. Several state deparmtents have different criteria for is actively supported. Wasn't sure if we can specify in the document or not.

Alastair: Tricky thing to test. If any of these are available on the website they should be available in a consistent location. Make that dependent on whether it is on the site -- then it should be consistently available.

Jennie: Could it go in the understanding? What if it they don't have any already and the site is active?

Steve: Do we need to have it worded for entire site or particular pages?

Jennie: Assumption would be entire site.

RESOLUTION: Leave open

Alastair: We have a few that are very close and hopefully we can rattle through is future meeting.

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

04 Feb 2020

Attendees

Contents

WCAG 2.2 FPWD CFC

Silver naming

WCAG 2.2 Custom interactions: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Custom_interactions/

WCAG 2.2 Findable help: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/findable-help/

Silver naming

Silver FPWD survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/Silver-ED-21-01-2020/results

WCAG 2.2 Custom interactions: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Custom_interactions/

WCAG 2.2 Findable help: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/findable-help/

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output